[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 答复: RE: RE: non-200 response to PRACK



Hi, 
	>>But the two subject has association: this one is your proposed subject's precondition. 	>>	>>If we can accept all 200OK of PRACK, non-200 lead to termination of session, why next? 	> 	>Sure. If we decide that a non-200 response would terminate the 	>session we don't need to worry about whether a non-200 response 	>terminates the re-transmission of the reliable response or not.	> 	>But, I don't think we have an agreement on that. The current 	>agreement is that it IS allowed to send a non-200 response, so 	>therefor I think it is also ok to discuss how the re-transmission 	>would be affected.	> 	>	>[Gao] Is the agreement you mentioned reached during the IETF meeting? 
I would need to double check exactly what was agreed when.
At least we decided during an IETF meeting that it should be allowed to reject a PRACK SDP offer using a 4xx response. I think we then later on the list realized that a PRACK can be rejected for other reasons also.
Of course we can change previously made agreements (we have done that before - for good and bad), but I think we should have good reasons to do so.
Regards,
Christer	

	 


	>And, even if we would agree that a non-200 response would terminate 	>the session, I still think it would be an update to RFC3262. We 	>would also need to describe HOW the session is terminated, ie by 	>error responses, BYE/CANCEL etc. You cannot now assume that the UAS 	>will send an error response to the INVITE, and terminate the session	>that way, if e.g. the error response to the PRACK was sent by an 	>intermediate. And, you cannnot assume that an intermediate which 	>sends an error response to a PRACK would start sending BYEs/CANCELs.	>The intermeidate may not have any knowledge of PRACK - it rejects it	>e.g. due to overload.	> 		[Gao] Yes. But it is just complementarity, not overthrow. 		> 	> Regards,	> 	> Christer	> 	> 	> 	> 	> 	> 	> 	> 	>       	>       收件人	>       <gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul Kyzivat" <pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxx> 	>       抄送	>       <sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx>, <sipping@xxxxxxxx> 	>       主题	>       RE:   non-200 response to PRACK	> 	>       	> 	> 	> 	> 	>    Propose people use an appropriate subject. 	>    	>    	> ________________________________	> 	>    From: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx] 	> On Behalf Of gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx	>    Sent: 9. huhtikuuta 2009 4:45	>    To: Paul Kyzivat	>    Cc: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx; sipping@xxxxxxxx; Christer Holmberg	>    Subject: [Sipping] 答复: Re: 答复: RE: Re: 答复: Re: 答复: Re: 	> PRACK: Change MUST requirement to include SDP offer in first 	> reliable provisional response	>    	>    	>    Hi, 	>    	>    I just mean: 	>    	>    All the usage can be used in PRACK, we call it Set. 	>    By current RFC3262, can be used in PRACK, we call it SubSet1. 	>    SubSet1 is very small. And if we do usage beyond SubSet1, the 	> termination of session is acceptable (for me). 	>    So, I recommend that the UAS return a 200 when it has not been 	> able to process the PRACK due to an error, then terminate the session. 	>    	>    About authorization, I think, we can do authorization in PRACK(It	> is a choice, not mandatory thing.), but we should do not do it in 	> PRACK by current RFC3262. 	>    	>    If people want to enrich SubSet1, I think it is needed to modify 	> RFC3262 and find a way to solve the problem. 	>    	>    Thanks 	>    Gao 	>    	>    	>    BTW: the mail thread is bigger than 40KB, I just send a mail 	> bigger than 40KB. 	>    Propose people cut the mail short :) 	>    	>    	>    Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxx> 写于 2009-04-08 20:04:27:	>    	>    > 	>    > 	>    > gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:	>    > > 	>    > > Please see the previous mail:	>    > > 	>    > > as UAS MUST return 2xx, then we can *deduce* that it is UAC's	> obligation 	>    > > to make sure UAS will accept the PRACK.	>    > 	>    > I think that in general we can presume that the UAC doesn't *expect*	>    > that its PRACK will be rejected. Yet the PRACK can fail for no fault on	>    > the part of the UAC, and no fault on the part of the UAS either.	>    > 	>    > I've already given the example of authorization failure.	>    > 	>    > Its simply a faulty spec that presumes it can ignore the possibility of	>    > errors. All we are trying to do is *fix* that so that things will	>    > continue to function in a predictable way in the face of an error.	>    > 	>    > Would you honestly recommend that the UAS return a 200 when it has not	>    > been able to process the PRACK due to an error?	>    > 	>    >    Thanks	>    >    Paul 	>    	>    --------------------------------------------------------	>    ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in 	> this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail	> communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated 	> to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents 	> of this communication to others.	>    This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and	> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they	> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please 	> notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this 	> message are those of the individual sender.	>    This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.	>    	>    	>    	>    --------------------------------------------------------	>    ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in 	> this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail	> communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated 	> to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents 	> of this communication to others.	>    This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and	> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they	> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please 	> notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this 	> message are those of the individual sender.	>    This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.	>    	> 			--------------------------------------------------------	ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.	This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.	This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.	
_______________________________________________Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sippingThis list is for NEW development of the application of SIPUse sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sipUse sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP


[IETF Announce]     [IETF Discussion]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Free Online Dating]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Big List of Linux Books]

Add to Google Powered by Linux